MEANING OF A COURT; DISTINGUISH BETWEEN COURT AND JUDGE

Definition

A court is "a tribunal presided over by a judge, judges, or a magistrate in civil and criminal cases." (Oxford Languages)

Under Article VIII, Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution, 

Section 1. The judicial power shall be vested in one Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established by law.

Judicial power includes the duty of the courts of justice to settle actual controversies involving rights which are legally demandable and enforceable, and to determine whether or not there has been a grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of any branch or instrumentality of the Government.

A court is the office or tribunal, while the judge is the officer who presides over the office or tribunal.

ACTIONS

Civil Procedure 1 deals with ordinary civil actions.

You must know the technical meaning of an action, as opposed to a proceeding. You also have to know the differences among ordinary civil actions, special civil actions, criminal actions, and special proceedings. These words are not interchangeable and have technical meanings of their own.

Let's start with civil action. This is referred to in Rule 1, Section 3(a) as follows:

A civil action is one by which a party sues another for the enforcement or protection of a right, or the prevention or redress of a wrong. A civil action may either be ordinary or special.

As you can see, a civil action has two purposes:  first, the enforcement or protection of a right; second, the prevention or redress of a wrong.

Note that remedial law does not declare or create rights. That is done by substantive law, such as the 1987 Constitution and the Family Code. The Bill of Rights of the Consitution (Article (III) enumerates certain human rights which are inherent in every individual, such as the right to privacy, and the right to equal protection of the law. The Family Code enumerates the rights and obligations of husband and wife, such as the right to live together, observe mutual love, respect, and fidelity, and render mutual help and support.

What remedial law does, specifically the rule on ordinary civil actions is to enforce or protect a right or to prevent or redress a wrong. Thus, to provide redress when one's right to privacy has been violated, one can bring an action for damages. Or to enforce a spouse's right to financial support, the aggrieved spouse can bring an action for support.

The determinative word in the phrase "ordinary civil action" is the word "action". Its technical meaning is that of a dispute, a contention, or a conflict between the parties. You can imagine one party fighting another, and this will connote "action" in your mind.

Cause of action

Why am I emphasizing this? Because in an ordinary civil action, there has to be a cause of action. There has to be a conflict, a contention, a dispute. Remember, without any cause of action, there is no civil action. But, there could be a special proceeding which, by definition, is "a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact." (Rule 1, Section 3c) More on that later. For this moment, let us focus on the word "action."

Cause of action is defined this way in Rule 2, Section 2:

Sec. 2. Cause of action, defined. - A cause of action is the act or omission by which a party violates a right of another.

Elements of a cause of action

A cause of action has three elements. As stated in the case of Spouses Nolasco Fernandez et al vs. Smart Communications, Inc., GR No. 212885, July 17, 2019:

A complaint states a cause of action if it sufficiently avers the existence of the three (3) essential elements of a cause of action, namely: (a) a right in favor of the plaintiff by whatever means and under whatever law it arises or is created; (b) an obligation on the part of the named defendant to respect or not to violate such right; and (c) an act or omission on the part of the named defendant violative of the right of the plaintiff or constituting a breach of the obligation of defendant to the plaintiff for which the latter may maintain an action for recovery of damages. If the allegations of the complaint do not state the concurrence of these elements, the complaint becomes vulnerable to a motion to dismiss on the ground of failure to state a cause of action. (Emphasis supplied)

These three elements must all be present in a civil action, otherwise, the case will be dismissed.

 
Rights and obligations

I looked at the popular definitions of rights, and they are as follows: 

• a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. (Oxford Languages)
• a moral or legal entitlement to have or obtain something or to act in a certain way. (Merriam-Webster)
• a power or privilege held by the general public as the result of a constitution, statute, regulation, judicial precedent, or other type of law. (Wex Toolbox)

Article 1157 of the New Civil Code gives five sources of obligations, and I would therefore also consider these as the sources of rights because the rights of one person are the obligation of another:

• Law
• Contracts
• Quasi-contracts
• Delicts
• Quasi-delicts

For more information, see Project Jurisprudence.

Parties to a civil action

The parties to an ordinary civil action are known as the plaintiff and defendant. Rule 3, Section1 states:

Section 1. Who may be parties; plaintiff and defendant. - Only natural or juridical persons, or entities authorized by law may be parties in a civil action. The term "plaintiff" may refer to the claiming party, the counter-claimant, the cross-claimant, or the third (fourth, etc.)[-]party plaintiff. The term "defendant "may refer to the original defending party, the defendant in a counterclaim, the cross-defendant, or the third (fourth, etc.) - party defendant. 

The word "plaintiff" comes from the Anglo-French word "pleintif" which means "complaining". It can be traced back to the word "plaint" meaning "lamentation."

From there, you can see that the plaintiff and the defendant are contending against each other. The plaintiff is claiming from the defendant, while the latter is defending himself.

That is not the case in special proceedings.


Special proceedings

I mentioned earlier that ordinary civil actions refer to "actions" but not "proceedings". There is a technical meaning for special proceedings in remedial law, and this is found in Rule 1, Section 3(c):

(c) A special proceeding is a remedy by which a party seeks to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.

Do not interchange these two terms. Actions have the three elements of a cause of action, while special proceedings do not pertain to any action, conflict, or dispute. Instead, they seek to establish a status, a right, or a particular fact.

There are several kinds of special proceedings, one of which is guardianship under Rules 92 to 97. There are two main facts sought to be established in this kind of proceeding. First, that the person sought to be placed under guardianship is an "incompetent" as defined by law. Second, that the person sought to be appointed as guardian is duly qualified.

A guardianship proceeding does not involve any dispute between the prospective guardian and the prospective ward. One is not suing the other because of any violation.

Therefore, the person who brings the proceeding is not a plaintiff. He is a petitioner. He is petitioning, or praying, for something. The prospective ward is not a defendant. He is not defending himself against any claim of the petitioner. If he will oppose the petition, he does so by proving that he does not come under the definition of incompetent, but he will not be denying any liability to the petitioner because he has not committed any act or omission against the petitioner. He can be designated as an oppositor or a respondent, but not a defendant.

Special Civil Actions

Special civil actions are those which are governed by specific provisions of the Rules of Court, such as interpleader, petition for certiorari, mandamus or prohibition, foreclosure of real estate mortgage, or expropriation.

Criminal Actions

Criminal actions are those by which the State prosecutes persons for acts or omissions punishable by law. These are governed by the Revised Penal Code, the Rules of Criminal Procedure, and other penal laws.

Actions and proceedings not covered by the Rules of Court

There are also actions and proceedings that are not covered by the Rules of Court because there are specific laws and rules that govern them. Under Rule 1, Section 4, these are election cases, land registration, cadastral, naturalization and insolvency proceedings, and other cases not provided for.

In these cases, the Rules of Court may apply by analogy or in a suppletory character whenever practicable and convenient.

RULE-MAKING POWER OF THE SUPREME COURT; POWER TO SUSPEND OR AMEND RULES

 The Constitution authorizes the Supreme Court to promulgate rules of pleading, practice and procedure. This is the basis of its authority in promugating the Rules of Court and other procedural rules.

The 1987 Constitution, Article XVIII, Section 5(5) provides that the Supreme Court has the power to:

"Promulgate rules concerning the protection and enforcement of constitutional rights, pleading, practice, and procedure in all courts, the admission to the practice of law, the integrated bar, and legal assistance to the underprivileged. Such rules shall provide a simplified and inexpensive procedure for the speedy disposition of cases, shall be uniform for all courts of the same grade, and shall not diminish, increase, or modify substantive rights. Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."

This provisions lays down limitations for the exercise of this rule-making power:

1) The procedure shall be simplified and inexpensive.

2) The goal the speedy disposition of cases.

3) The rules must be uniform for all courts of the same grade. This means, for example, that rules of procedure for all RTCs should appply all throughout the country; the same is true for all first level-courts or MTCs.

4) The rules shall not diminish, increase or modify substantive rights. Only laws passed by the lawmaking body can affect substantive rights. Procedural rules are intended to govern pleading, practice and procedure in order to protect (not modify) substantive rights.

As part of its rule-making power, the Supreme Court is authorized to amend or suspend its own rules to serve the interest of justice. So it was held in Julie S. Sumbilla vs. Matrix Finance Corporation, GR No. 197582, June 29, 2015 where the Supreme Court stated:

xxx the immutability of final judgments is not a hard and fast rule. The Court has the power and prerogative to suspend its own rules and to exempt a case from their operation if and when justice requires it. After all, procedural rules were conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter, as specifically mandated under Section 2, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court: 

xxx 

Substantial justice demands that we suspend our Rules in this case. 'It is always within the power of the court to suspend its own [R]ules or except a particular case from its operation, whenever the purposes of justice require. x x x Indeed, when there is a strong showing that a grave miscarriage of justice would result from the strict application of the Rules, this Court will not hesitate to relax the same in the interest of substantial justice.' Suspending the Rules is justified 'where there exist strong compelling reasons, such as serving the ends of justice and preventing a miscarriage thereof.' After all, the Court's 'primordial and most important duty is to render justice x x x.'

LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF PROCEDURAL RULES

The norm is that procedural rules should be interpreted liberally to attain substantial justice. Technicalities of procedure should be avoided. This guideline is found in Rule 1, Section 6 of the ROC which states:

Sec. 6. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and proceeding.

However, the Supreme Court is careful to point out that procedural rules should be respected and observed, and cannot just be disregarded by invoking the interest of justice. If it is to be invoked as a basis for failure to meet procedural requirements, the movant should give a good justification. The High Court stated that:

"... the bare invocation of 'the interest of substantial justice' is not a magic wand that will automatically compel courts to suspend procedural rules." (Jose F. Latogan vs. People, January 22, 2020, GR No. 238298)

Cases:

1) Dr. Joseph L. Malixi et al vs. Dr. Glory V. Baltazar, GR No. 208224, November 22, 2017

Petitioners Dr. Malixi et al filed an administrative complaint against Dr. Baltazar for gross misconduct. The case was filed before the Civil Service Commission.

The CSC dismissed the case on the ground of forum shopping. The CSC denied the Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration, prompting them to appeal the case before the Court of Appeals.

The CA dismissed the appeal on technical grounds, namely:

1. The Petitioners did not state the date they received the CA decision, and the date they filed their Motion for Reconsideration;

2. The attached Decision and Resolution are mere photocopies;

3. The Mandatory Compliance Legal Education (MCLE) compliance date of the Petitioners' counsel is not stated;

4. There is no proof of competent evidence of identities.

The CA denied the Petitioners' Motion for Reconsideration. This prompted the Petitioners to bring the case before the Supreme Court.

Petitioners maintain that they indicated the important dates in their appeal before the Court of Appeals and that they attached certified true copies of the assailed Decision and Resolution. However, they admit that they failed to indicate the date of their counsel's Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE) compliance and to provide proof of "competent evidence of identities."

In this case, the Supreme Court pointed out that procedural rules should be observed for the orderly administration of justice. However, there are certain exceptions.

Citing Aguam v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court stated:

The court's primary duty is to render or dispense justice. "A litigation is not a game of technicalities." Lawsuits, unlike duels, are not to be won by a rapier's thrust. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant consideration from courts." Litigations must be decided on their merits and not on technicality. Every party litigant must be afforded the amplest opportunity for the proper and just determination of his cause, free from the unacceptable plea of technicalities.

2) Jose F. Latogan vs. People, January 22, 2020, GR No. 238298

Jose F. Latogan was charged and convicted of murder in a Decision dated June 5, 2015. He filed a Motion for Reconsideration in which the notice stated:

Upon receipt hereof, please submit the same for hearing for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court. Further, please schedule the same for oral arguments as soon as the Prosecution files its comment thereto.

 The RTC denied this Motion because it did not state the date on which it is to be set for hearing, contrary to the provision of the Rules of Court.

On July 24, 2015, the Accused filed a Notice of Appeal. The RTC denied the notice on the ground that the Decision had become final.

The Accused filed a special civil action for Certiorari (Rule 65) before the Court of Appeals but this was dismissed by the CA on technical grounds.

Almost five months after receipt of the Resolution dated September 29, 2015, the petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration on March 14, 2016. He claimed that he stands to serve reclusion perpetua for a heinous crime he purportedly committed; and that his petition was meant to correct the order of the RTC judge denying his appeal. Considering the judge's blatant and grave error in convicting him of Murder instead of Homicide, and in the interest of justice, technicalities should be set aside and his petition, as well as the notice of app al, should be given due course.22

In the meantime, the CA in the Resolution dated February 26, 2016 denied due course to petitioner's Notice of Appeal for being erroneous and belatedly filed remedy.


Undeterred, petitioner filed the present petition arguing that the CA gravely erred in denying his Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration and Notice of Appeal.25 Essentially, he points out to the Court that his conviction carries a prison term of reclusion perpetua which, standing alone, is a circumstance exceptional enough to allow him the opportunity to challenge the RTC's Decision for reasons of equity and substantial justice.

We grant the petition.

The notice in the motion for reconsideration filed by petitioner before the RTC reads as follows:

NOTICE:

The CLERK OF COURT
Regional Trial Court
Br. 6, Justice Hall,
Baguio City

Sir:

Upon receipt hereof, please submit the same for hearing for the kind consideration of the Honorable Court. Further, please schedule the same for oral arguments as soon as the Prosecution files its comment thereto.

Thank you very much.

The notification prays for the submission of the motion for reconsideration for hearing but without stating the time, date, and place of the hearing of the motion. This is not the notice of hearing contemplated under Sections 4 and 5, Rule 1527 of the Rules of Court. The rules are explicit and clear. The notice of hearing shall state the time and place of hearing and shall be served upon all the parties concerned at least three days in advance. The reason is obvious: unless the movant sets the time and place of hearing, the court would have no way to determine whether the other party agrees to or objects to the motion, and if he objects, to hear him on his objection, since the Rules themselves do not fix any period within which he may file his reply or opposition.

The Court is well aware of the judicial mandate that rules prescribing the time which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. With respect to notices of hearing of motions, in particular, the Court has consistently warned that a notice of hearing which does not comply with the requirements of the Rules of Court is a worthless piece of paper and would not merit any consideration from the Court.

However, procedural rules were precisely conceived to aid the attainment of justice. If a stringent application of the rules would hinder rather than serve the demands of substantial justice, the former must yield to the latter. Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court enjoins the liberal construction of the Rules of Court in order to promote its objective to assist the parties in obtaining just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.30 As to be discussed below, given the realities obtaining in this case, the liberal construction of the rules will better promote and secure a just determination of petitioner's culpability.

The CA likewise pointed out several procedural infirmities in petitioner's petition for certiorari, such as: (1) the lack of motion for reconsideration from the trial court's order denying petitioner's notice of appeal; (2) failure to implead the respondent People of the Philippines in the petition and furnish the Office of the Solicitor General with a copy of the petition; (3) lack of proof of service and affidavit of service as to whether the petition was served by personal service or by registered mail; and (4) failure to prove that the petition was timely filed. Records show as well that petitioner's Omnibus Motion for Reconsideration of the CA's September 29, 2015 Resolution was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period and, as a consequence, it already attained finality which bars any review. On this ground alone, his petition was properly dismissed outright.

Withal, as in the liberal construction of the rules on notice of hearing, the Court has enumerated the factors that justify the relaxation of the rule on immutability of final judgments to serve the ends of justice, including: (a) matters of life, liberty, honor or property; (b) the existence of special or compelling circumstances; (c) the merits of the case; (d) a cause not entirely attributable to the fault or negligence of the party favored by the suspension of the rules; (e) a lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory; and (f) the other party will not be unjustly prejudiced thereby.

In one case, the CA dismissed petitioner's appeal for failure to timely file a motion for reconsideration of the RTC's Decision. According to the CA, the RTC decision could no longer be assailed pursuant to the doctrine of finality and immutability of judgments. Upon petition for review, though; the Court relaxed the application of the doctrine and held that the doctrine must yield to practicality, logic, fairness, and substantial justice.

After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds that compelling circumstances are extant in this case to justify the relaxation of the rules. Primarily, petitioner's life and liberty are at stake. The trial court has sentenced him to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua and this conviction attained finality on the basis of a mere technicality, not entirely through his fault or own doing. It is but proper, under the circumstances, that petitioner be given the opportunity to defend himself and pursue his appeal. To do otherwise would be tantamount to grave injustice. Both petitioner's motion for reconsideration before the RTC and his subsequent petition for certiorari in the CA also appear to stand on meritorious grounds. In addition, there is lack of any showing that the review sought is merely frivolous and dilatory.

In setting aside the aforementioned technicalities, infirmities, and thereby giving due course to tardy appeals and defective petitions, it must be emphasized that the Court is mindful of the extraordinary situations that merit liberal application of the Rules. In this case, where technicalities were dispensed with, the Court's decisions were not meant to undermine the force and effectivity of the periods set by the law. On the contrary, in those rare instances, there always existed a clear need to prevent the commission of grave injustice as in this case. Our judicial system and the courts have always tried to maintain a healthy balance between the strict enforcement of procedural laws and the guarantee that every litigant be given the full opportunity for the just and proper disposition of his cause.







The Court is fully aware that procedural rules are not to be simply disregarded as they insure an orderly and speedy administration of justice. Nonetheless, it is equally true that courts are not enslaved by technicalities. They have the prerogative to relax compliance with procedural rules of even the most mandatory character, mindful of the duty to reconcile both the need to speedily put an end to litigation and the parties' right to an opportunity to be heard. Cases should be decided only after giving all parties the chance to argue their causes and defenses. Technicality and procedural imperfection should, as a rule, not serve as bases of decisions. In that way, the ends of justice would he served.

Retroactive and prospective application of procedural laws

Should procedural laws be given retroactive effect? Should they apply to pending actions? 

Let me respond with an illustration. 

On June 23, 2003, Republic Act No. 9211 was approved which prohibited smoking in hospital buildings, among others. Fines shall be imposed for violations.

A person who smoked before the law was passed will not be penalized because the law should apply only to future violations. This is what we mean when we say that substantive laws take effect prospectively.

However, this rule does not apply to procedural laws which may, as a rule, apply to cases that remain unresolved as of the time said laws take effect.

Note though that procedural laws will not be applied retroactively when this would result in a great injustice.

The Supreme Court clearly explained the general rule and exception in the case of Jaime Tan Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, GR No. 136368, January 16, 2002. Here are excerpts from the ruling:

"It is evident that if we apply the old rule on finality of judgment, petitioner redeemed the subject property within the 120-day period of redemption reckoned from the appellate court's entry of judgment. The appellate court, however, did not apply the old rule but the 1997 Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. In fine, it applied the new rule retroactively and we hold that given the facts of the case at bar this is an error.

There is no dispute that rules of procedure can be given retroactive effect. This general rule, however, has well-delineated exceptions. We quote author Agpalo:

'9.17. Procedural laws.

Procedural laws are adjective laws which prescribe rules and forms of procedure of enforcing rights or obtaining redress for their invasion; they refer to rules of procedure by which courts applying laws of all kinds can properly administer justice. They include rules of pleadings, practice and evidence. As applied to criminal law, they provide or regulate the steps by which one who commits a crime is to be punished.

The general rule that statutes are prospective and not retroactive does not ordinarily apply to procedural laws. It has been held that 'a retroactive law, in a legal sense, is one which takes away or impairs vested rights acquired under laws, or creates a new obligation and imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability, in respect of transactions or considerations already past. Hence, remedial statutes or statutes relating to remedies or modes of procedure, which do not create new or take away vested rights, but only operate in furtherance of the remedy or confirmation of rights already existing, do not come within the legal conception of a retroactive law, or the general rule against the retroactive operation of statutes.' The general rule against giving statutes retroactive operation whose effect is to impair the obligations of contract or to disturb vested rights does not prevent the application of statutes to proceedings pending at the time of their enactment where they neither create new nor take away vested rights. A new statute which deals with procedure only is presumptively applicable to all actions - those which have accrued or are pending.

Statutes regulating the procedure of the courts will be construed as applicable to actions pending and undetermined at the time of their passage. Procedural laws are retroactive in that sense and to that extent. The fact that procedural statutes may somehow affect the litigants' rights may not preclude their retroactive application to pending actions. The retroactive application of procedural laws is not violative of any right of a person who may feel that he is adversely affected. Nor is the retroactive application of procedural statutes constitutionally objectionable. The reason is that as a general rule no vested right may attach to, nor arise from, procedural laws. It has been held that 'a person has no vested right in any particular remedy, and a litigant cannot insist on the application to the trial of his case, whether civil or criminal, of any other than the existing rules of procedure.'

Thus, the provision of Batas Bilang 129 in Section 39 thereof prescribing that 'no record on appeal shall be required to take an appeal' is procedural in nature and should therefore be applied retroactively to pending actions. Hence, the question as to whether an appeal from an adverse judgment should be dismissed for failure of appellant to file a record on appeal within thirty days as required under the old rules, which question is pending resolution at the time Batas Bilang 129 took effect, became academic upon the effectivity of said law because the law no longer requires the filing of a record on appeal and its retroactive application removed the legal obstacle to giving due course to the appeal. A statute which transfers the jurisdiction to try certain cases from a court to a quasi-judicial tribunal is a remedial statute that is applicable to claims that accrued before its enactment but formulated and filed after it took effect, for it does not create new nor take away vested rights. The court that has jurisdiction over a claim at the time it accrued cannot validly try the claim where at the time the claim is formulated and filed the jurisdiction to try it has been transferred by law to a quasi-judicial tribunal, for even actions pending in one court may be validly taken away and transferred to another and no litigant can acquire a vested right to be heard by one particular court.

9.18. Exceptions to the rule.

The rule that procedural laws are applicable to pending actions or proceedings admits certain exceptions. The rule does not apply where the statute itself expressly or by necessary implication provides that pending actions are excepted from its operation, or where to apply it to pending proceedings would impair vested rights. Under appropriate circumstances, courts may deny the retroactive application of procedural laws in the event that to do so would not be feasible or would work injustice. Nor may procedural laws be applied retroactively to pending actions if to do so would involve intricate problems of due process or impair the independence of the courts."

We hold that section 1, Rule 39 of the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure should not be given retroactive effect in this case as it would result in great injustice to the petitioner. Undoubtedly, petitioner has the right to redeem the subject lot and this right is a substantive right. Petitioner followed the procedural rule then existing as well as the decisions of this Court governing the reckoning date of the period of redemption when he redeemed the subject lot. Unfortunately for petitioner, the rule was changed by the 1997 Revised Rules of Procedure which if applied retroactively would result in his losing the right to redeem the subject lot. It is difficult to reconcile the retroactive application of this procedural rule with the rule of fairness. Petitioner cannot be penalized with the loss of the subject lot when he faithfully followed the laws and the rule on the period of redemption when he made the redemption. The subject lot may only be 34,829 square meters but as petitioner claims, "it is the only property left behind by their father, a private law practitioner who was felled by an assassin's bullet."

Petitioner fought to recover this lot from 1988. To lose it because of a change of procedure on the date of reckoning of the period of redemption is inequitous. The manner of exercising the right cannot be changed and the change applied retroactively if to do so will defeat the right of redemption of the petitioner which is already vested."

SUBSTANTIVE AND REMEDIAL LAW

The foundation of all our rights is the Bill of Rights (Article III) of the 1987 Constitution. The over-arching right is found in the due process clause, specifically in Section 1 which states:

"No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, nor shall any person be denied the equal protection of the laws."  

OVERVIEW OF THE SOURCES OF RULES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE

For ordinary civil actions, our main source of rules is the Revised Rules of Court with 2019 Amendments, from Rule 1 (General Provisions) to 71 (Contempt as a special civil action). 

Kindly refer to the Revised Model Curriculum of the Basic Law Program of the Legal Education Board (LEB Memorandum Order No. 24, S. 2021) in which the subjects Civil Procedure 1 and Civil Procedure 2 are described as follows:

Civil Procedure I (3 units)

A study on the interplay of procedural laws in the resolution of civil disputes, with an in-depth focus on the jurisdiction in civil actions, Rules 1 to 39 of the 1997 Rules of Court as amended, and small claims. The course also includes a discussion of appropriate modes of dispute resolution such as mediation, barangay conciliation, and the like. The study of the rules is supplemented by a study of applicable jurisprudence. The course also develops familiarity with relevant legal forms. There is no prerequisite course.

Civil Procedure II (3 units)

A study on the interplay of procedural laws in the resolution of civil disputes, with an in-depth focus on Rules 40 to 71 of the 1997 Rules of Court as amended, including Provisional Remedies. The study of the rules is supplemented by a study of applicable jurisprudence. The course also develops familiarity with relevant legal forms. Prerequisite: Civil Procedure I

Other sources of civil procedure are:

• Rules on Expedited Procedures in the First Level Courts (AM No. 08-8-7-SC)
• 2020 Guidelines for the Conduct of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) in Civil Cases AM 19-10-20-SC

Introduction: Simplified flowchart of an ordinary civil action

Civil procedure is not an easy subject for law students because it is quite technical and, in a way, abstract. It is easier to learn by doing, just as it is with any subject involving procedure.

When I was a law student, my professor in Remedial Law Review was the late Justice Serafin Cuevas. He said that studying remedial law (which civil procedure is part of) is like studying chess.  It is difficult to imagine just by reading. It is easier to understand by doing. 

This I realized when I started with my law practice soon after taking my lawyer's oath. 

And so now that I teach the subject, I can only imagine the struggles of law students in understanding the concepts and rules of civil procedure.

I wrote this virtual textbook to help you --- the law student --- understand the subject better, and prepare for the bar exams and for law practice.

So I am starting this virtual textbook with a simplified flowchart of an ordinary civil action. Note that this is very simplified, and the purpose of this is to give you the big picture. In the beginning, this flowchart may not make sense to you, but consider each part as a puzzle piece. As you go along, you will be able to put the puzzle pieces together and the whole picture will make sense.

In any case, if you have questions, post it on the comment box and I will do my best to answer you promptly.

THE FLOWCHART EXPLAINED

The flowchart starts with a cause of action. The cause of action is what triggers the filing of a case. Remember, without any cause of action, there is no reason for filing a case; there is no basis for filing a complaint. Later on we will define these concepts and discuss them in detail. For now, I will give you enough information to make you understand the big picture.

The  cause of action belongs to the Plaintiff. He is one of the primary actors in an ordinary civil action. He is the owner of the right that was violated by the Defendant, the other primary actor in a civil case.  Because his right was violated, the Plaintiff files a Complaint, which we call an initiatory pleading. It initiates or starts the case.

In response, the Defendant files a pleading called an Answer. The Answer may admit certain matters in the Complaint, it may also contain the defenses of the Defendant. In the Answer, the Defendant may also raise certain claims against the Plaintiff, which we will call a counterclaim. 

After the Plaintiff and Defendant (known as the Parties) file their Complaint and Answer, respectively, the case will now be set for pre-trial. Pre-trial has several purposes. Perhaps, the parties might agree on amicable settlement, which can lead to the early resolution of the case. If not, the parties will be required to lay their cards on the table by agreeing on the issues to be tried, and disclosing the evidence that they intend to present during the trial. 

Once the pre-trial is over, trial will be held in which the Plaintiff will be required to present evidence first, and then rest his case. Then the Defendant will present evidence, and rest his case.

After both parties have completed their evidence presentation, the court will render a judgment.

The party who does not agree with the judgment may file a motion for reconsideration, motion for new trial, or an appeal within 15 days from notice of the judgment. The judgment will become final and executory after the lapse of 15 days if none of these were filed. On the other hand, if these were filed, the parties will wait for these to be resolved.

The judgment will then become final and executory, and may now be enforced. For example, if the Plaintiff won the case and the judge rendered a judgment finding the Defendant liable for a sum of money, this is the time to enforce the judgment.

However, there are still two extraordinary remedies available to the losing party even after the judgment has become final and executory. These are a petition for relief and an action to annul the judgment. These can be availed of only under very exceptional circumstances as we will study later.

As I said, this is a very simplified flowchart of an ordinary civil action. A lot of incidents can and will take place, such as service of summons, the filing of motions, pre-trial briefs and others. I decided to simply it at this stage so that you would not be confused. At the end of this course, I will present you with a very detailed flowchart to show you all the possibilities that can happen in an ordinary civil action. By then, you will be able to tie all these together and all the different parts will make sense.

In the meantime, I can only advise you to be patient with yourself as you become familiar with the concepts and procedures.